From journalists through sub editors, editors and other staff, every word you read or see has gone through at minimum 5 layers of approval.
Every single word is intentional.
Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
From journalists through sub editors, editors and other staff, every word you read or see has gone through at minimum 5 layers of approval.
Every single word is intentional.
If you consider it reputable, then it is intentional.
If you consider the BBC or NYT reputable, then they are doing the same thing. I have been posting tens of examples here and the other thread on how they report.
killing people by starvation is "contreversial".
This is just from the last 24 hours. Imagine the tens of thousands of examples in the past decades.
This is where our own biases kick in. NYT has some of their own problems and I haven’t really followed their coverage on this issue but regarding BBC and AP:
They really want to avoid using terms that have specific technical and legally charged definitions.
This isn’t solely unique to Israel Palestine either.
BBC have refused to call Russian activities in Ukraine war crimes, instead trying to bypass this by using sentences like, “spokesman for Zelenskyy has accused Russia of war crimes”.
They did a whole piece on relocation of Ukrainian children to random parts of Russia but refused to call it ethnic cleansing and they also refused to call the annexation of Kherson and Luhansk imperialism or illegal. Again when they want to make allures to it they will quote someone who claims it is. Heck they did a whole segment on holomodor and refused to call it a genocide.
I understand why it’s grating and like the reaction to the Israel Palestine situation, many Ukrainians or pro Ukrainian commentators have been angry on social media about this editorial stance.
I genuinely don’t have a problem with these headlines from BBC and AP, the problem I do have a problem with BBC is they keep inviting these talking heads from Israel and let a lot of bullshit go unchallenged.
Then what could be an explanation for why two articles on bombings in Ukraine on practically the same time frame has different wording?
I can actually dig out the examples when I’m at my computer
Also you’d think there would be layers of approval but I’ve seen so many reputable news articles with typos, misspellings, captions with the wrong label etc that stay up for hours and in one instance even a day, before being corrected.
This is understandable, but reputable journalism have to be fair, they do not use the same terms for both sides. They still use different descriptions for each side.
One particularly egregious example was a headline about a man with Down Syndrome dying in Gaza. The BBC edited the headline later to reflect that he was attacked by an IDF dog.
So it's understandable to avoid specific legal terms and such but there are examples of some really shitty headlines that desperately try to avoid blame at Israel.
So it's understandable to avoid specific legal terms and such but there are examples of some really shitty headlines that desperately try to avoid blame at Israel.
It isn't like Lebanon is a sovereign state or anything...
The video of the man being burnt alive whilst in a hospital tent hooked up to an IV, and unable to move - is the most distressing and horrific video I've seen in my life.
At this point, the only way to stop Israel would be to either kill the top brass of Israel? They're not listening to Europe, they're not listening to the US (who keep supplying them with all the weapons they need), they're not listening to the UN - so what happens now?
Does one country have to go it alone to do to that and risk it all? Or do Israel just get to continue their genocide?
At this point, the only way to stop Israel would be to either kill the top brass of Israel? They're not listening to Europe, they're not listening to the US (who keep supplying them with all the weapons they need), they're not listening to the UN - so what happens now?
Does one country have to go it alone to do to that and risk it all? Or do Israel just get to continue their genocide?
They way to stop them would be for the rest of the world to cop on and stop supporting them with words, money and arms.
Without the US and Europe behind them, Israel is a very small country, surrounded by a lot of larger countries to whom they have done some fairly horrific things.
Stop the weapons and money and they will fall into line very bloody quickly.
You can't say they aren't listening to the US. The Biden administration may sheepishly provide public push-back on occasion, but the reality is that the weapons and support keep on rolling in. That is the only language Israel understands, and exactly what they are listening to. Israel escalates, continues the genocide in Gaza and expands the war in Lebanon, so the US sends more aid. Until the US starts changing course, Israel will continue to roll on.
The way to stop them is to target the US, which is almost impossible. Its very much their genocide as it is Israel's. Its their weapons, diplomatic support and essential blackmailing that allows the genocidal onslaught to carry on. Only way this stops is if they no longer become suffocated by the likes of AIPAC, and public sentiment wildly shifts away from backing Israel. Perhaps one day they stop drinking the kool-aid and realise that Israel is some horrific fascist colonial endeavour and decide they'd rather their government looks after them instead of funnelling millions to some colony which enjoys a better standard of life. But when you factor in the evangelical crazies/MAGA morons on one side, and the fairweather Dems on the other side who are seemingly progressive on every issue except THAT one, then its tough to see how the tide changes anytime soon.
They have to write that so many times per day, the language will inevitably vary from time to time. Just from a very quick glance at The Guardian’s live blog from today, there were more than one example that didn’t suit this picture. Cherry-picking like this is not very constructive.
The bombed school was planned to be used for the polio vaccination campaign which started today. They had to cancel the vaccination in that school due to severe damage according to Philippe Lazzarini.
Free Palestine, feck every single person who enables this genocide
Absurd if that's true.
They are of strategic importance in the middle east to the USA and UK. They are listening, they just understand the reality.
What you're assuming is variance is actually a planned approach. There's very little variance on actual top story headlines, what they do is amend it once it's gone beyond the top story. Most people don't read beyond headlines, most people aren't aware of the worst acts being committed in Gaza.
Opinion peices is another cowardly tactic the Guardian uses so they can pretend there's balance.
Yep, its clear this has been the plan all along. Prolong the hostilities, and annex as much Palestinian territory as feasibly possible, essentially ethnically cleansing the territory and creating a homogenised ethno-state. All in the name of self-defence and ensuring Israelis are safe, all the while the various media organisations and lobby groups across the Western world are working overtime to continue laying the blame on Hamas and reiterating the lie that all of this is done as a defensive measure.
All these atrocities being committed are no accidents, they know if they continue to starve the Palestinians, bomb all areas of refuge (while conveniently and indiscriminately labelling them as Hamas sites), they hope to drive all of them out.
In fact this plan has already been in operation well before October 7th, its why we have armed settler scumbags terrorising west bank towns, with the backing of the IDF to help drive the Palestinians out. October 7th has just given the Israelis an excuse to fast forward this directive, while killing as many Palestinians as they can feasibly get away with in the process.
Yeah, and you know this how? Provide some evidence.
Are you here defending the Guardian specifically or all mainstream outlets? Because if it's the latter, that would be worth a
You're wrong. There is a line, spoken and unspoken, which then constitutes the editorial line. The first is ideological and the second is institutional ideological. The "top-down" movements (rhetoric by politicians) has been overwhelmingly "we support Israel's right to defend itself" (which is Israel's right to indiscriminately murder whoever they like within certain spheres such as Gaza, the WB, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen).
This is subsumed by writers (they are humans living within this echo chamber) and gradually becomes the editorial line. That this line is entirely asymmetric with respect to acts of terror against Israel relative to acts of terror by Israel is a casualty of the propaganda machine (and it is intentional qua geopolitical understandings of "national interest").
i don't tweet much about these headlines, sometimes i think the highlighted examples of bias aren't the most convincing, but cumulatively these do a job: a poll in april showed that americans were split about which side had suffered more deaths (at that staage it was about a 30:1 ratio on official numbers)
Apart from specific headlines, we have whistleblowers and data exposing the very clear prejudice in Western media.
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/cnn-msnbc-gaza-media-bias-study/
https://theintercept.com/2024/01/09/newspapers-israel-palestine-bias-new-york-times/
https://theintercept.com/2024/03/01/cnn-christiane-amanpour-israel-gaza-coverage/
https://breachmedia.ca/cbc-palestinian-deaths-dont-merit-murderous-vicious-israel/
https://theintercept.com/2024/04/15/nyt-israel-gaza-genocide-palestine-coverage/
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024...as-uncovered-behind-the-lens-of-western-media
https://hyphenonline.com/2024/07/04...-has-worsened-palestine-analysis-bbc-itv-sky/
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/cnn-msnbc-gaza-media-bias-study/
https://theintercept.com/2024/01/09/newspapers-israel-palestine-bias-new-york-times/
https://theintercept.com/2024/03/01/cnn-christiane-amanpour-israel-gaza-coverage/
https://breachmedia.ca/cbc-palestinian-deaths-dont-merit-murderous-vicious-israel/
https://theintercept.com/2024/04/15/nyt-israel-gaza-genocide-palestine-coverage/
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024...as-uncovered-behind-the-lens-of-western-media
https://hyphenonline.com/2024/07/04...-has-worsened-palestine-analysis-bbc-itv-sky/
Only The Guardian. I don’t think they can be accused of pro-Israel bias.Are you here defending the Guardian specifically or all mainstream outlets? Because if it's the latter, that would be worth a
Why do you think there’s something wrong with what the BBC are saying here? Genuine question.
making excuses for idf barbarians that even they are not bothering to make for themselves
How are they making excuses? They are mentioning what is usually the IDF excuse. That’s a perfectly fine way to give context and give the readers a chance to make up their own minds about whether Hamas using civilians as a shield (which is true) is justification for killing 15 children from a total of 22.
Yeah ok, the Guardian are only both-siding twats which makes them a notch above the rest but that's not saying much.
What is wrong with bode-siding in a war between two despicable sides? And I’m obviously not talking about Gaza/Palestine there.
Because it's very much of a David Goliath situation where the casualties and death affects one side disproportionately.
Russia-Ukraine is "Both sided" too when it comes to right and wrong and it pisses me off to no end.
But The Guardian’s coverage generally focuses on criticism of Israel, while not being blind to atrocities committed by Hezbollah, Hamas or Iran.
Is that not because Israel has been committing atrocities for the past 12 months whereas between the three "Axis of evil" or whatever you want to refer to them as, they've had a few ineffective missile barrages and two terror attacks since Oct/7th finished.
Like, even now, people say, "Do you condemn Hamas," like feck, this is like someone banging on about US strategic bombing of Stuggart as Auschwitz is in full spin.
i wonder how this "shields" thing is going on after a year.
first, the idf has shown that it will bomb any area where it suspects there is an enemy. for example, they have an AI that decides who a hamas fighter may be, where he lives, and bombs the house. so by enemy i don't mean someone actively firing at them, but someone in the gaza government (health, sanitation, etc) or military wing of hamas. in the case of lebanon they have shown that they will kill hundreds of "shields" to get one target.
then, they have shown also that they fire directly at civilians, with multiple bullets directly in the skulls of children under 10 found and reported by foreign doctors, then the contest among idf snipers in 2018 in which one would have to shoot the most civilian knees to win.
third, gaza, because of the blockade enforced by israel, is, or was before this genocide, one of the most densely populated regions in the world. i don't think there is much room to build things that are both far away from habitation and undetectable.
fourth, we know what human shield usage looks like when the idf has, literally, multiple times, over decades, tied palestinian kids to the front of its tanks while going on raids.
finally, we know that the idf lies about hamas infrastructure in some civilian facilities - they made up and never found this massive hamas hq under the hospital, they said that a calnder of dcotor shift rotations was a hostage calender, etc. they dont just lie, they make the thinnest stupidest lies that don't stand up to a minutes' thinking, suggesting that the aim is not to convine, but just to get in statements exactly like the bbc statement you are defending or what the despicable state dept spokesmen can brainlessly point to.
to sum up, the reason i dont think hamas uses human shields is because they only can function as shields if they're seen as human by the IDF. in the israeli tank example, it is an effective shield because palestnian militants have a strong incentive against killing palestinian kids. the idf have shown that, in the best case, they will kill dozens of shields to get to a "target", and, in other cases, simply shoot these shields directly for the fun of it. a good test would have been the hostages. those are actual human shields, since the value placed on their life by the idf may not have been zero. however, the bombing has killed dozens of hostages, suggesting that even jewish israelis, let alone muslim palestinians, are totally non-existent human shields.